CORAM
COKER, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
MADARIKAN , JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
OBASEKE, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
LAGOS CITY COUNCIL APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appellant acquired the respondents property and the High Court fixed the sum 13, 340 pounds based on the market value of properties in the area given by an expert.
HELD
The court held that assessment made by the Court was justified on the basis of the evidence before it and dismissed the appeal and respondents notice.
ISSUES
Whether the provisions of Order 7, rule 13 (1) are designed to meet a situation which is tantamount to a complete reversal of the judgement already given or the employment of the rule is circumscribed within the bounds of what is strictly speaking a mere variation.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
PROCEDURE FOR ESTIMATING VALUE OF A PIECE OF LAND
<br< p=””></br<>
ASSESSMENT OF COMPENSATION TO BE PAID FOR THE COMPULSORY ACQUISITION
<br< p=””></br<>
WHEN NOTICE IS REQUIRED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 13(1) SUPREME COURT RULES
notice under Order 7, rule 13 (1) applies where a particular point in the appeal of the appellant is being stretched by the respondent who contends for its maintenance but proposes a variation of it if that be the only way by which he could be enabled to retain the judgement. It would seem however that once a respondents notice has been given, the appellant cannot prevent the respondent having the point raised in his notice argued by withdrawing his (appellants) notice of appeal.
CHARACTERISTICS OF ORDER 7 RULE 13(1) SUPREME COURT RULES
The rule requires that the notice under it should be given to “every party who may be affected by such contention whether or not such party has filed an address for service”. Thus it will be seen that the notice envisages a variation which may affect not only the particular appellant but also others as well who may not have appealed in the first instance. It is not easy-to draw a clear-cut line of demarcation between degrees of variation and it is not impossible for an order of variation to affect the interests of other parties to the extent of virtually reversing the judgement which they had obtained
CHARACTERISTICS OF ORDER 7 RULE 13(1) SUPREME COURT RULES
No provision other than Order 7, rule 13 (1) appears in the rules of the Supreme Court for bringing a cross-appeal, although it is proper to regard any appeal by a dissatisfied respondent as a cross-appeal. This involves, prima facie, that an appeal has already been filed since it is only in that context that one conceives of a respondent at all. On the other hand, there is nothing in the rules of court depriving a respondent of the right to appeal against a decision with which he is dissatisfied. To do this would be tantamount in our view to an infringement of the clear provisions of section 117 (6) of the Constitution of the Federation which specifically reserves the right of appeal prescribed therein. Per Coker J.S.C
CHARACTERISTICS OF ORDER 7 RULE 13(1) SUPREME COURT RULES
Another characteristic of Order 7, rule 13 (1) is that it is applicable only where the respondent intends to retain the judgement but at the same time wants it varied; so where a respondent intends for instance to dispute the jurisdiction of the court of trial or to contest the competency of the entire proceedings or to maintain the absence of a fundamental prerequisite, it seems he cannot come under this rule. In that case he has to file a substantive cross-appeal. The basis for this is clear for a man cannot at the same time obtain an advantage by maintaining a particular stand-point and then seek to discard that same stand-point whilst keeping the advantage
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO